Criminal Law — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 195A — Threatening any person to give false evidence — Nature of offence — Cognizable or non-cognizable — Procedure for prosecution.
Held:
The offence under Section 195A IPC is a distinct and cognizable offence, and not governed by Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).
Accordingly, the police are empowered to register an FIR and investigate such offence under Sections 154 and 156 CrPC.
The insertion of Section 195A CrPC (2009) only provides an additional remedy enabling a witness or any other person to file a complaint before a Magistrate, but does not preclude police investigation.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 195(1)(b)(i), read with Sections 340 and 195A CrPC — Scope and applicability — Distinction between offences under Sections 193–196 IPC and Section 195A IPC.
Held:
Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC applies only to offences under Sections 193 to 196 IPC (false evidence and offences against public justice) and not to Section 195A IPC, which was introduced later and specifically categorized as cognizable in the First Schedule to CrPC.
Therefore, a complaint by the concerned Court is not a precondition for taking cognizance or initiating investigation for an offence under Section 195A IPC.
Interpretation of Statutes — Harmonious construction — Legislative omission — Casus omissus — When not to be supplied by Court.
Held:
Courts cannot invoke the doctrine of casus omissus to fill in legislative gaps where the statutory language is clear.
However, where legislative intent is discernible, provisions may be construed harmoniously to give full effect to the law.
The absence of express exclusion of Section 195A IPC from Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC does not mean it is covered thereby — the scheme, context, and classification indicate a clear legislative intention to treat it separately as a cognizable offence.
Practice and Procedure — FIR under Section 195A IPC — Validity — Complaint under Section 195A CrPC — Permissive, not mandatory.
Held:
The word “may” in Section 195A CrPC is permissive and not mandatory.
A threatened witness or any other person may either:
-
Give information to the police and initiate FIR (being a cognizable offence), or
-
File a direct complaint before the Magistrate.
Both routes are valid — the latter being an additional remedy, not an exclusive one.
High Court Orders — Kerala and Karnataka High Courts — Erroneous view.
Held:
The High Courts of Kerala and Karnataka erred in holding that the offence under Section 195A IPC required compliance with Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC.
Such interpretation is contrary to the statutory scheme and legislative intent.
Their orders were accordingly set aside, and the proceedings restored.
Result:
Appeals allowed.
Kerala High Court order dated 04.04.2023 (B.A. No. 556 of 2023) set aside; bail of accused cancelled (with liberty to reapply on other grounds).
Karnataka High Court orders dated 22.01.2025 in Crl. Petition No. 11719/2023 and Crl. Revision No. 123/2023 set aside; cognizance and trial court orders restored.2025 INSC 1260
1
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. ............... OF 2025
[@ SLP (Crl.) No. 6238 of 2024]
State of Kerala … Appellant
versus
Suni @ Sunil … Respondent
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs. .................. OF 2025
[@ SLP (Crl.) Nos. 8223-8224 of 2025]
J U D G M E N T
SANJAY KUMAR, J
1. Leave granted.
2. In Maktool Singh vs. State of Punjab1
, this Court had observed
that precision and brevity are generally the hallmarks of legislative
draftsmanship. The cases on hand, however, bear testimony to how laxity
in such draftsmanship can generate and be a source of litigation.
3. The issue presently is as to how the offence under Section 195A of
the erstwhile Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), has to be construed and
dealt with. Section 195A IPC reads as follows: -
1 (1999) 3 SCC 321
2
‘Section 195A – Threatening any person to give false evidence. -
Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or
property or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person
is interested, with intent to cause that person to give false evidence
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both;
and if innocent person is convicted and sentenced in consequence of
such false evidence, with death or imprisonment for more than seven
years, the person who threatens shall be punished with the same
punishment and sentence in the same manner and to the same extent
such innocent person is punished and sentenced.’
4. This offence was introduced in the IPC with effect from 16.04.2006,
vide Act No. 2 of 2006. It found place in Chapter XI, titled ‘Of false
evidence and offences against public justice’. Section 191 was the first
provision in this chapter and was titled ‘Giving false evidence’. It stated
that, whoever, being legally bound by an oath or by an express provision
of law to state the truth, or being bound by law to make a declaration upon
any subject, makes any statement which is false, and which he either
knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, is said to give
false evidence. Section 192 IPC defined ‘Fabricating false evidence’ and
Section 193 IPC provided the punishment therefor. It reads thus:
‘193. Punishment for false evidence. -
Whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any stage of a judicial
proceeding, or fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used
in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
seven years, and shall also be liable to fine;
and whoever intentionally gives or fabricates false evidence in any
other case, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to
fine.’
3
5. The offences under paras 1 and 2 of Section 193 IPC were
both non-cognizable, as reflected in the First Schedule to the erstwhile
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The offence under para 1 was
triable by a Magistrate of First Class while the offence under para 2 thereof
was triable by any Magistrate. Both the offences were bailable.
6. Section 194 IPC dealt with ‘Giving or fabricating false evidence with
intent to procure conviction of capital offence’ and it reads as under: -
‘194. Giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to procure
conviction of capital offence. - Whoever gives or fabricates false
evidence, intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he
will thereby cause, any person to be convicted of an offence which is
capital by the law for the time being in force in India shall be punished
with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term
which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine;
if innocent person be thereby convicted and executed. - and if an
innocent person be convicted and executed in consequence of such
false evidence, the person who gives such false evidence shall be
punished either with death or the punishment hereinbefore described.’
The offences under para 1 and para 2 above were also
non-cognizable and they were both triable by a Court of Sessions. Further,
both offences were non-bailable.
7. Section 195 IPC dealt with giving or fabricating false evidence with
intent to procure conviction of offence punishable with imprisonment for
life or imprisonment for a term of seven years or upwards. This offence
was non-cognizable, non-bailable and was triable by a Court of Sessions.
8. Sections 196 to 200 IPC dealt with other facets of perjury, i.e., using
evidence known to be false; issuing or signing a false certificate; using as
4
true a certificate known to be false; false statement made in declaration
which is by law receivable as evidence; and using as true such declaration
knowing it to be false. All these offences were punishable in the same
manner as if the person convicted therefor gave/fabricated false evidence.
All these offences were also non-cognizable.
9. Parallelly, Section 195 CrPC was titled ‘Prosecution for contempt of
lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and
for offences relating to documents given in evidence’. For the purposes of
these cases, Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC is of relevance. It reads thus: -
‘195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public
servants, for offences against public justice and for offences
relating to documents given in evidence. –
(1) No Court shall take cognizance -
(a) …
(b) (i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections
of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely, sections 193
to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive)
and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been
committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court,
or.........
(ii) …
(iii) …
except on the complaint in writing of that Court or by such officer of the
Court as that Court may authorise in writing in this behalf, or of some
other Court to which that Court is subordinate.
(2) ……..’
10. Therefore, as per the scheme of Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC, an
offence punishable under Sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive) could not
be taken cognizance of by a Court, when such offence was alleged to
have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court,
5
except on the complaint in writing of that Court or by such officer of that
Court, as may be authorized by that Court in writing in that behalf, or of
some other Court to which that Court is subordinate.
11. The procedure to be followed in such cases was detailed in Section
340 CrPC. This provision reads as under: -
‘340. Procedure in cases mentioned in section 195.-
(1) When upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise,
any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice that
an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of
Sub-Section (1) of section 195, which appears to have been committed
in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or, as the case may be,
in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a
proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary
inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary;-
a. record a finding to that effect;
b. make a complaint thereof in writing;
c. send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction;
d. take sufficient security for the appearance for the accused before
such Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non-bailable and the Court
thinks it necessary so to do, send the accused in custody to such
Magistrate; and
e. bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such
Magistrate.
(2) The power conferred on a Court by sub-section (1) in respect of an
offence may, in any case where that Court has neither made a
complaint under sub-section (1) in respect of that offence nor rejected
an application for the making of such complaint, be exercised by the
Court to which such former Court is subordinate within the meaning of
sub-section (4) of section 195.
(3) A complaint made under this section shall be signed, -
(a) where the Court making the complaint is a High Court, by such
officer of the Court as the Court may appoint;
(b) in any other case, by the presiding officer of the Court or by such
officer of the Court as the Court may authorise in writing in this behalf.
(4) In this section, “Court” has the same meaning as in section 195.”
6
12. It is clear from a plain reading of the aforestated provision that if,
upon receiving an application, any Court is of the opinion that an inquiry
should be made into the offences referred to in Section 195(1)(b) CrPC,
which appear to have been committed in, or in relation to, a proceeding in
that Court or in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a
proceeding in that Court it may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it
thinks fit, record a finding to that effect and make a complaint thereof in
writing to a jurisdictional Magistrate of First Class.
13. Now, a look at more general provisions which are also of relevance.
The word ‘Complaint’ was defined by Section 2(d) CrPC to mean any
allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking
action under the CrPC, that some person, whether known or unknown,
has committed an offence, but did not include a police report. The
Explanation appended thereto, however, clarified that a report made by a
police officer in a case which disclosed, after investigation, the
commission of a non-cognizable offence shall be deemed to be a
complaint; and the police officer by whom such report was made shall be
deemed to be the complainant.
14. ‘Cognizable offence’, as defined by Section 2(c) CrPC, meant an
offence for which, and ‘cognizable case’ meant a case in which, a police
officer may, in accordance with the First Schedule thereto or under any
other law for the time being in force, arrest without warrant. A
7
‘non-cognizable offence’, as defined by Section 2(l) CrPC, meant an
offence for which, and ‘non-cognizable case’ meant a case in which, a
police officer had no authority to arrest without warrant.
15. Section 154 CrPC dealt with information being given of the
commission of a cognizable offence and how it was to be processed.
Section 155 CrPC dealt with how information as to commission of a
non-cognizable case was to be processed and investigated. Section 156
CrPC dealt with a police officer’s power to investigate a cognizable case.
These provisions, to the extent relevant, read as under: -
‘154. Information in cognizable cases. -
(1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable
offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall
be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over
to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing
or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving
it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by
such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in
this behalf.
Provided that …… :
Provided further that -……
(2) A copy of the information as recorded under Sub-Section (1) shall
be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant.
(3) Any person, aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in
charge of a police station to record the information referred to in
Sub-Section (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing
and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied
that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable
offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an
investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in
the manner provided by this Code, and such officer shall have all the
powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that
offence.
8
155. Information as to non-cognizable cases and investigation of
such cases. -
(1) When information is given to an officer in charge of a police station
of the commission within the limits of such station of a non-cognizable
offence, he shall enter or cause to be entered the substance of the
information in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the
State Government may prescribe in this behalf, and refer, the
informant to the Magistrate.
(2) No police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without
the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the
case for trial.
(3) Any police officer receiving such order may exercise the same
powers in respect of the investigation (except the power to arrest
without warrant) as an officer in charge of a police station may exercise
in a cognizable case.
(4) Where a case relates to two or more offences of which at least one
is cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be a cognizable case,
notwithstanding that the other offences are non-cognizable.’
156. Police officer’s power to investigate cognizable case. -
(1) Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a
Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court having
jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would
have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII.
(2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage
be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such
officer was not empowered under this section to investigate.
(3) Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order such an
investigation as above-mentioned.
16. The above provisions make it clear that the procedure to be followed
apropos a cognizable offence is vastly different from the procedure
relating to a non-cognizable offence - in the context of how information as
to commission of such offence is to be dealt with and how it is to be
investigated. When information as to commission of a non-cognizable
offence is given to a jurisdictional police officer, he must record the same
9
in the manner prescribed and refer the informant to a Magistrate. Section
155(2) CrPC makes it clear that a non-cognizable case cannot even be
investigated without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such
case or commit it for trial. It is only after receipt of such order that a police
officer can exercise the same powers in respect of investigation, except
the power to arrest without warrant, as an officer in charge of a police
station may exercise in relation to a cognizable case.
17. This being the scheme obtaining at the time that Section 195A IPC
came to be inserted in the statute book, the issue is as to how the offence
thereunder is to be dealt with. The conundrum arises due to the fact that
Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC remained unchanged even after insertion of
Section 195A IPC. As noted earlier, Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC stated that
offences punishable under Sections 193 IPC to 196 IPC (both inclusive)
could not be taken cognizance of until a complaint in writing was made by
the Court concerned or by an officer authorized by that Court or by a
superior Court. Section 195A IPC, introduced in 2006, obviously fell
between Sections 193 IPC to 196 IPC but the issue is whether the same
procedure would apply to the offence thereunder.
18. Notably, in Salib alias Shalu alias Salim vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
and others2
, this Court found, on facts, that the ingredients to constitute
2 (2023) 20 SCC 194
10
an offence under Section 195A IPC were not made out and, therefore,
while noting that the said offence was a cognizable one whereby a police
officer would have the power to investigate it, the question as to whether
Section 195 CrPC would apply to that offence was left open.
19. Pertinent to note, when Section 195A IPC was inserted in the statute
book in the year 2006, an amendment was also made in the First
Schedule to the CrPC, inserting Section 195A IPC therein, specifically
categorizing it as a ‘cognizable offence’, unlike the offences under
Sections 193 IPC, 194 IPC, 195 IPC and 196 IPC, which were shown as
non-cognizable offences. Significantly, an amendment was also made in
Section 195(1) of the CrPC by the very same Act No. 2 of 2006, with effect
from 16.04.2006, whereby the phrase ‘or by such officer of the Court as
that Court may authorise in writing in this behalf’, came to be inserted in
addition to the existing ‘except on the complaint in writing of that Court, or
of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate’. Unfortunately,
while making this amendment in Section 195(1) CrPC, the lawmakers did
not deem it necessary to clarify whether the offence under Section 195A
IPC was to be treated as an exception to the procedure prescribed for the
other offences, referred to in Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC, by excluding it
specifically from the ambit thereof. However, in the year 2009, Section
195A CrPC was introduced in the statute with effect from 31.12.2009, vide
Act No. 5 of 2009. This provision reads as under: -
11
‘195A. Procedure for witnesses in case of threatening, etc.-
A witness or any other person may file a complaint in relation to an
offence under section 195A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).’
20. This provision made it clear that a witness or any other person could
file a complaint about commission of an offence under Section 195A IPC.
This procedure was demonstrably dichotomous with the procedure under
Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC, as the offences enumerated thereunder
required the complaint to be made only by the Court concerned or by an
officer authorized by that Court or by a superior Court. In that scenario,
there was no possibility of any other person making a complaint
independently. Section 195A CrPC made it manifest that this was not the
case with an offence under Section 195A IPC!
21. The ticklish issue of Section 195A IPC has troubled several High
Courts resulting in contradictory and inconsistent views. In Rahul Yadav
vs. State and another3
, a learned Judge of the Delhi High Court observed
that the offence under Section 195A IPC was a cognizable one and,
therefore, it was within the power of the police officer concerned to register
an FIR. The learned Judge observed that Section 195A CrPC only
provided an additional remedy of filing a complaint in relation to the
offence punishable under Section 195A IPC but it did not declare the
offence under Section 195A IPC to be a non-cognizable offence.
3 2018 SCC OnLine Del 8271
12
22. In Abdul Razzak vs. State of M.P. and another4
, a learned Judge
of the Madhya Pradesh High Court affirmed and followed the view taken
in Rahul Yadav (supra). On similar lines, in Homnath Niroula vs. State
of West Bengal5
, a learned Judge of the Calcutta High Court observed
that the restriction imposed on procedure under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC
was not applicable to cases arising under Section 195A IPC. Again, in
Ramlal Dhakad and others vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh6
, a
learned Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court noted that the act of
threatening a person with the intention of making him give false evidence
constituted an offence under Section 195A IPC and actual false evidence
being given in Court, pursuant to such threat, is not the requirement. The
action of the police officer in registering an FIR in relation to the offence
under Section 195A IPC was, accordingly, held to be lawful and valid.
23. On the contrary, in Neput Rajiyung @ Action Dimasa @ Miput
Rajiyung vs. State of Assam and another7
, a learned Judge of the
Gauhati High Court opined that a separate procedure is laid down in
Sections 195 CrPC, 340 CrPC and 195A CrPC for launching prosecution
in relation to certain cognizable offences, including the offence of witness
threatening under Section 195A IPC. The learned Judge concluded that
4 2023 SCC OnLine MP 7152 = ILR 2024 MP 1067
5 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 7323
6 MCRC No. 31316 of 2020, decided on 22.01.2024
7 (2023) 6 Gauhati Law Reports 302
13
prosecution under Section 195A IPC can be launched by a witness or any
other person only by way of a complaint before a Magistrate and not by
way of an FIR before a police officer. This view was followed by a learned
Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Sazid vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh8
.
24. In the cases on hand also, the High Courts of Kerala and Karnataka
proceeded under the assumption that the procedure under Section
195(1)(b)(i) CrPC was required to be followed in the context of an offence
committed under Section 195A IPC.
In the appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6238 of 2024, the
officer-in-charge of Koratty Police Station, Thrissur Rural, registered FIR
No. 1062 dated 05.12.2022 under Section 195A IPC read with Section
120(o) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011. The offence alleged was that the de
facto complainant, who had turned approver in a murder case, was
threatened with dire consequences if he failed to give false evidence. The
accused in that FIR applied for bail on the ground that due procedure was
not followed in connection with the registration of the offence. A learned
Judge of the Kerala High Court held that the procedure under Section
195(1)(b)(i) CrPC had to be followed and granted him bail, by order dated
04.04.2023. Aggrieved thereby, the State of Kerala is before us.
8 2022 SCC OnLine MP 4583
14
The appeals arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 8223-8224 of 2025 assail
separate orders dated 22.01.2025 passed by a learned Judge of the
Karnataka High Court in Criminal Petition No. 11719 of 2023 and Criminal
Revision Petition No.123 of 2023 respectively. Crime No. 135 of 2016 was
registered on 15.06.2016 in relation to the killing of one Yogesh Goudar.
This case was entrusted by the Government of Karnataka to the Central
Bureau of Investigation (CBI). During the course of investigation, the CBI
found that the charge-sheeted accused were not the ones who had
executed Yogesh Goudar and submitted its own chargesheet naming
different accused. Thereafter, the CBI found that some witnesses were
intimidated by those accused prior to examination before the Court and,
as a result, they had turned hostile. The CBI then brought the same to the
notice of the learned Principal Civil Judge & Principal Judicial Magistrate
(First Class), Dharwad, which was treated as a complaint under Section
195A CrPC, and cognizance was taken, vide order dated 04.12.2020.
Assailing the said order, one of the accused approached the High Court
under Section 482 CrPC in Criminal Petition No. 11719 of 2023
complaining of procedural irregularity. Another accused in that FIR filed a
discharge petition under Section 227 CrPC but the same was dismissed
by the learned LXXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru,
vide order dated 14.07.2022. Aggrieved thereby, the said accused filed a
revision petition in Criminal Revision Petition No.123 of 2023.
15
By separate orders dated 22.01.2025 passed in the two cases, a
learned Judge of the Karnataka High Court set aside the orders dated
04.12.2020 and 14.07.2022 on the ground that the procedure under
Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC was not followed. The cognizance order dated
04.12.2020 was set aside along with the order dated 14.07.2022 and the
petitioner in Criminal Revision Petition No.123 of 2023 was discharged
from the array of accused. Hence, these appeals by the CBI.
25. The learned senior counsel appearing for the accused sought to rely
upon the decision of this Court in Union of India vs. Ashok Kumar
Sharma and others9
. We find such reliance to be misconceived, as that
was a case arising in a different statutory milieu under the Drugs and
Cosmetics Act, 1940. Section 32 thereof dealt with cognizance of offences
under Chapter IV and stated that such prosecution could be initiated only
by the persons/entities named therein. In that context, this Court held that
a police officer could not register an FIR under Section 154 CrPC in
relation to offences under Chapter IV, as only the persons mentioned in
Section 32 could initiate prosecution for such offences. The scheme of
that statute being entirely different, this decision has no relevance.
26. The further argument of the learned senior counsel is that the
offence under Section 195A IPC should be split up into two. His argument
9 (2021) 12 SCC 674
16
requires the provision to be interpreted in such a manner as to create two
categories of offences, that is, if the offence under Section 195A IPC is
committed in or in relation to a proceeding before the Court, then the
complaint would have to be made by the Court under Section 195(1)(b)(i)
CrPC duly following the procedure under Section 340 CrPC. However, if
the offence under Section 195A IPC is committed not in, or in relation to,
a proceeding before the Court, then Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC would not
be applicable so the Court cannot make a complaint in relation thereto
and it is for the victim of such offence to then file a complaint under Section
195A CrPC. We find no merit in this argument as it practically requires us
to rewrite the provision contrary to how it actually reads.
27. We may note, at this stage, that the shortfalls and lack of lucidity in
the statute do not constitute casus omissus, i.e., ‘a case of omission’. It is
well settled that it is not permissible for the Court to apply the doctrine of
casus omissus where the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous
as the words used by the statue speak for themselves and it is not the
function of the Court to add words or expressions merely to suit what the
Court thinks is the intent of the legislature [See S.R. Bommai vs. Union
of India10]. As pointed out by a Constitution Bench in Nathi Devi vs.
Radha Devi Gupta11, while interpreting a statute, effort should be made
10 (1994) 3 SCC 1
11 (2005) 2 SCC 271
17
to give effect to each and every word used by the legislature and a
construction which attributes redundancy to the legislature should not be
accepted except for compelling reasons, such as obvious drafting errors.
However, in a situation where it is not an instance of casus omissus by
the draftsman of the legislation and there are ample means to gather the
clear intention of the lawmakers, the statutory provisions which are
seemingly lacking in clarity, but are actually not so, can be synchronized
so as to give effect to the legislation as intended, without the Court
venturing into the realm of legislative drafting. Such an exercise would
only require harmonious construction of the provisions so as to give full
effect to the legislation.
28. From the statutory scheme, as set out supra, it is clear that Section
195A IPC was conceptualized as an offence distinct and different from
those under Sections 193 IPC, 194 IPC, 195 IPC and 196 IPC. Those
offences require a complaint to be made only by those named in Section
195(1)(b)(i) CrPC and they were all non-cognizable offences. However,
an offence under Section 195A IPC was a cognizable offence and
pertained to inducing a person to give false evidence by intimidating
him/her with threat of injury either to his/her person or reputation or
property or to the person or reputation of anyone in whom that person is
interested. The threat to a witness may be given long before he comes to
the Court though the giving of false evidence, under such threat, is in
18
connection with a proceeding before that Court. That is, perhaps, the
reason why this offence was made cognizable so that the threatened
witness or other person may take immediate steps by either giving oral
information of the commission of this cognizable offence to the concerned
police officer, under Section 154 CrPC, or by making a complaint to a
jurisdictional Magistrate, under Section 195A CrPC, so as to set the
process of criminal law in motion. Requiring that person to go before the
Court concerned, i.e., the Court in which the proceeding is pending in
relation to which false evidence is to be given, and inform it about the
threat received, thereby necessitating a complaint under Section
195(1)(b)(i) along with an inquiry under Section 340 CrPC, would only
cripple and hamper the process.
29. Section 195A CrPC, therefore, aimed at bringing clarity to the issue.
The threatened witness or other person could approach the police or file
a complaint in relation to an offence under Section 195A IPC so that the
process relating to cognizable offences could commence immediately.
The use of the word ‘may’ in Section 195A CrPC indicates that it is not
compulsory for a threatened witness or other person to only approach the
Magistrate concerned to complain of the offence under Section 195A IPC.
Given the scheme and structure of both the statutes, i.e., the IPC and the
CrPC, in the context of the offence under Section 195A IPC, we are not
persuaded by the argument that the word ‘may’ in Section 195A CrPC
19
should be read as ‘shall’. The undeniable fact remains that the offence
under Section 195A IPC is a cognizable offence and once that is so, the
power of the police to take action in relation thereto under Sections 154
CrPC and 156 CrPC cannot be doubted. As the said offence is classified
as a cognizable offence, the process of criminal law can as well be set in
motion by giving information of the commission of such offence to the
concerned police officer under Section 154 CrPC. It is only by way of an
additional remedy that Section 195A CrPC permits the threatened witness
or any other person acting on his behalf to file a complaint before the
jurisdictional Magistrate to set the process of criminal law in motion. This
aspect has already been touched upon by this Court, though in the
passing, in Salib (supra). This, in our considered opinion, is the proper
and correct method of construing and giving effect to the relevant
provisions in relation to an offence under Section 195A IPC.
30. In the result, the interpretation placed upon such provisions by the
learned Judges of the Kerala and Karnataka High Courts is held to be
erroneous and unsustainable.
In consequence, the order dated 04.04.2023 passed by the Kerala
High Court in B.A. No. 556 of 2023 is set aside and the bail granted to the
accused, Suni @ Sunil, is set aside. He shall surrender before the Trial
Court within two weeks. However, as bail was granted to him only on the
limited ground of the procedure under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC not being
20
followed, which we have held to be incorrect, this order shall not preclude
him from seeking bail afresh on other grounds, if warranted.
The orders dated 22.01.2025 passed by the Karnataka High Court
in Criminal Petition No. 11719 of 2023 and Criminal Revision Petition No.
123 of 2023 respectively are set aside. In consequence, the cognizance
order dated 04.12.2020 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge &
Principal Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Dharwad, shall stand restored.
Further, the dismissal of the discharge application filed by the petitioner in
Criminal Revision Petition No. 123 of 2023, Sri Basayya Thirakaya
Hiremath, by the learned LXXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru, vide order dated 14.07.2022, shall also stand restored.
The appeals are, accordingly, allowed.
……………………...J
[SANJAY KUMAR]
.……………………...J
[ALOK ARADHE]
New Delhi;
October 28, 2025.
